_________________The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect

The things that the Bernie Bros are saying about Warren now that she is pushing ahead...

There is also this weird "electability" form of racism that the Democrats--even people of color themselves--are guilty of. There is generalization that because others may be racist old white dudes are more electable than candidates of color. But the hard and fast truth supported by tons of empirical data says this is simply not true. There is not even a correlation in the "electability" numbers between race or gender and chances of winning. So anyone not voting for their top candidate and voting based upon the electability of a white person, is buying into an untrue racist stereotype.

i agree, but it doesn't even have to be about color. bernie didn't fare well last time around because so many people who wanted to support him had decided (his fate by saying) he couldn't win. let's not do that this time around, which is my fear about warren. i'm not 100 percent in her camp (yet), but i worry people will make the same mistake again.

Yeah, there are other factors in play as well. The color aspect is just one that we know for a fact has no significant statistical impact upon electability, yet is often listed as a concern for candidates of color. It's ironic but the, "We need to beat Trump, and those racists in [input Swing State here] won't vote for a minority candidate, so let's nominate a white person even though they aren't the person I really want", is racist in its own right. It's a much more insidious racism that comes from internalizing systemic racism, and even the most well meaning of people can be guilty of it, but it harms candidates of color and thus harms the Democratic party and their chances of nominating whoever the best possible candidate is.

A similar thing happens with gender as well. And the last election feeds that, partly because so many Democrats are unwilling to accept that Clinton was unpopular for reasons outside of her gender and that female candidates are not harder to elect. But it serves to remember that as unpopular as Clinton was, she still won the popular vote by 2% and there were significant outside factors that hurt her (Russian interference, the Comey letter, the media's over-the-top handling of her emails), and some significant tactical errors like not campaigning in midwestern swing states.

So, voters are not racist or sexist in their voting preferences. But some people think voters are racist and sexist. We'll call these people "the thinkers". Because the thinkers think the non-racist and non-sexist voters are actually racist and sexist when they empirically are not, the thinkers want a white male to run against Trump instead of a colored person or woman. But it's really, really the thinkers who are the racists and sexists for wrongly believing the voters are racist sexists.

So, voters are not racist or sexist in their voting preferences. But some people think voters are racist and sexist. We'll call these people "the thinkers". Because the thinkers think the non-racist and non-sexist voters are actually racist and sexist when they empirically are not, the thinkers want a white male to run against Trump instead of a colored person or woman. But it's really, really the thinkers who are the racists and sexists for wrongly believing the voters are racist sexists.

Have I got this analysis of Democrats right?

It's a little more complicated than that.

There are racist/sexist voters out there who will not vote for a candidate of color or a woman, no matter what. And it's not a small number of them. It's just that the vast, vast majority of them are far right voters--people who are not going to vote for a Democrat no matter who the nominee is: man, woman, minority or white.

This means that there is little actual difference in the "electability" of a man, woman, minority, or white person. The type of voter who is likely to swing between the two parties typically is more concerned with other factors.

As for the other aspect, yes, making generalized assumptions about someone based upon the color of their skin or their gender--in this case that a person is less electable because they are a PoC or a woman than they would be if they were a man or a white person--is racial or gendered stereotyping.

If it were actually true, while it would still be problematic, it would be more in a gray area since it could arguably have some cause to factor into a decision, and then you get into the philosophical arguements over whether or not it's ever okay to make a racist/sexist decision based simply upon utility. But in this case, you don't even have that.

Anyone who votes for a xenophobe/racist/sexist over someone who isn't, just sees us (minorities) as expendable and secondary to the policies which are likely to be instep with the views of the candidate of their choice and complicit in our (minorities) oppression.

Anyone who votes for a xenophobe/racist/sexist over someone who isn't, just sees us (minorities) as expendable and secondary to the policies which are likely to be instep with the views of the candidate of their choice and complicit in our (minorities) oppression.

Agreed. There was some jackass far left dude (Bernie supporter) on twitter who was upset that Warren of all people was polling well. There was a fight going on between some Bernie supporters and supporters of Warren/other candidates. One of the Bernie supporters, in a moment of clear thought, noted, "Well, whoever wins the nomination I'll still vote for them even if they aren't someone I like because the alternative is disaster". So just when I started to have faith in these fellows, someone else vomited up: "I don't know, the warmongering corporate shills of the DNC chosen will do more harm to us overall than the incompetent Trump could ever do."

And all I could think as I looked at the older, white, male profile picture of the asshole who said that was, "What utter privileged bullshit to say." Yeah, more harm unless you are a person of color, a woman, a Muslim, or LGBTQ. You know, people who have real world immediate consequences heaped upon them by the outcome of these elections. Ugh. If Twitter had a "slap a dude silly" button, I'd have been spamming it.

So just when I started to have faith in these fellows, someone else vomited up: "I don't know, the warmongering corporate shills of the DNC chosen will do more harm to us overall than the incompetent Trump could ever do."

.... someone else vomited up: "I don't know, the warmongering corporate shills of the DNC chosen will do more harm to us overall than the incompetent Trump could ever do."

This is one of the (many) foibles of the various media platforms: just cuz he gets equal Twitter space/time as anyone else doesn't mean Joe Schmoe's tweet represents anything more than ONE idjit's warped perspective, not a significant demographic. Yes, ONE such thinker is one too many, but....this is NOT a trending principle, I am certain.

Trump's minority core of deplorables are entrenched, deep in their bunkers, with their assault rifles and foil hats at the ready. Jesus himself could win the Dem nomination, and they'd still vote Republican. In my circle of acquaintances, I know several Trump voters that have sworn off him with disgust. (....why aren't more of THOSE folks tweeting??)

I personally am heartened by Warren's current surge. Joe's gotta go, and Bernie....well....if he'd just get a good haircut, more might take him seriously. But really....let's give the process a chance to play out. There is/has been a full display of diversity on the debate stages, and polls tell their own story....albeit mercurial, at times.

I am hoping that the shell-shock of The Trump Effect is wearing off, and folks aren't just thinking of 'safe' picks as they process their choices re: Dem candidates.

OK so I am going to try and explain what is happening in the race at the moment, and touch on all the subjects being discussed in the last few pages.

PLEASE do not confuse this attempt to explain things as a justification for the thought process or agreement with the thought process.

Many, many, many Dems/people hate Trump, can't believe he is President and desperately want him to not be elected as President again in 2020. So while looking at the Democratic candidates vying for the Presidency in 2020 while some voters are looking at the candidate they are most passionate about, others are looking for the candidate they think can win.

The roots of how race and sexism tie into the thought process. Again I am not saying I agree with this, just trying to explain it. Many Dem voters whether they are willing to say it out loud believe one of the main reasons Trump won is because enough people weren't willing to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, and believe that to a certain extent Trump is the product of a lot of anger from racist white people who had to sit through 8 years of a black president being energized to vote for a candidate that is white and speaks to some of their values.

Therefor going into the field of 2020 candidates overtly or even subconsciously many Dem voters had the idea that it would be hard for a female or person of color (and I would add not heterosexual to the list) to win the presidency against Trump as those things would be weaponized against them and to energize Trump's base. This got internalized, and cleaned up a bit to become the concept of "electability". Very few Dem voters would ever say I don't think a woman, a person of color or member of the LGBT community can win because that is inherently racist, sexist, and homophobic, but many also are so desperate to beat Trump that those ideas have colored their thought process to a point where they created the term "electability" to cover up something they may know is actually wrong.

Then Biden enters the race and immediately is the front runner by a large margin. Is that because people are really excited about Joe Biden? Is it because they are really passionate about his policies? Or is it because he ticks a lot of "electability" boxes?

It was the last one. First of all he is white, second of all he has a penis and third of all he is straight. This may seem like an over simplification but for many that already makes him the best choice to go up against Trump. Then add in nostalgia, he was the vice president to one of the most popular democratic presidents of all time who also happened to be the first black president, so not only does that give him electable credibility but it also makes him popular in the black community a vote the Dems need to come out in force. On top of that Biden has a reputation of being very appealing to working and middle class white people, especially in states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, basically the voters who Trump pulled away from Hillary to win the election (now many want to paint those voters as racist, but the truth is many of those voters voted for Obama at least once if not twice but come 2016 were feeling left behind and saw the choice between Clinton and Trump not so much as Man vs woman or republican vs democrat but (not to over simplify but saw the vote as "more of the same" vs "something different" and when part of something different's approach was a message of more working/middle class jobs, more manufacturing, cheaper energy,better trade deals, less illegal immigrants, etc they switched their vote from "more of the same" to "something different". Hopefully now those voters are having Trump fatigue or buyers remorse and who better to pull them back to the Dems than a guy who supposedly speaks their language and to their needs; Biden. On top of tat Biden as a centrist Democrat wouldn't scare away independents like those crazy socialists, and Joe was known as a scrapper who could stand up to Trumps bully persona.

So Biden was cloaked in 'electability" and was pretty much anointed the savior, at least until he started to actually campaign.

And then the problems started to arise, First off everyone forgot why he was Obama's VP in the first place. Obama was considered too young, inexperienced and not white enough to get elected so he chose an old, boring, white career politician to be his running mate, well that was in 2008, already old Biden in 2007/8 is now 12 years older. As he started to campaign Biden went from uncle Joe to Grandpa Joe. He was no longer the tenacious bulldog that Obama brought in to scrap while he went high, he got his ass handed to him in the first debate, that wasn't supposed to happen. Also what was tolerable and cute in 90's and early 2000s you know being a gropey old guy is now what that kids call "problematic" and was beginning to put a chink in his armor. But many kept giving him the benefit of the doubt because he seemed like the best option to beat Trump, but as mistakes continued to mount, things from his past were being put in a new light, and him never really stepping up to meet the challenge Dem voters started to turn on him. As I said no one was passionate about a Biden to begin with and with his "electability" beginning to get hit at every turn Dems had to make a new choice.

The new choice seems to be for now throwing out the idea of electability and going with passion, who are the candidates that people are excited about? Who is bringing new ideas to the table? who actually is explaining their ideas as relatable and possible? Is the new "electability" passion and bringing out the youth vote? it seems to be for now which is why Warren and Sanders have moved to the top. Many will argue they are too far left and Trump will be able to brand them as "left wing lunatics who will steal your guns, create a new green deal that will bankrupt the country and force you to ride in a solar power bus to the state run hospital or unemployment office after they confiscate your car and the bus will be driven by a legal immigrant as they opened all borders, with free health insurance etc" but possibly the passion people feel for them can ignite huge turnout and that plus them being "not Trump" will be enough to win the election.

And the same voters who were using "electability" as a code word for a racist and sexist thought process, will now use "passion and inclusivity" as their battle cry to rid themselves of Trump.

So in a nutshell, one group takes the approach of looking for the best possible candidate to provide the greatest chances of victory; the other group's approach is to find a candidate to equalise on as many demographics as possible, knowing that basically anyone will be superior to Trump when it comes to personality, likeability and general competence.
Both seem like valid approaches. The first is a little more aspirational in terms of actually wanting to end up with a good leader, and the second is maybe safer in terms of the probability of removing a terrible leader.

So in a nutshell, one group takes the approach of looking for the best possible candidate to provide the greatest chances of victory; the other group's approach is to find a candidate to equalise on as many demographics as possible, knowing that basically anyone will be superior to Trump when it comes to personality, likeability and general competence.
Both seem like valid approaches. The first is a little more aspirational in terms of actually wanting to end up with a good leader, and the second is maybe safer in terms of the probability of removing a terrible leader.

The problem with the second approach is that what people think makes someone more electable is for the most part not grounded in reality. For instance, the only thing that Biden actually has going for him on the "electable" scale is that he's a moderate, and there is some empirical evidence that backs up the idea that all else equal moderates have an advantage with the electorate. But even that advantage is not so great that other factors cannot quickly wipe it out if they are otherwise a poor candidate, or another candidate is simply superior.

So really the second option is not actually a safer option since you end up just voting for the person you think is the most likely person to remove the terrible leader, not the person who actually is the most likely to remove them.

Many will argue they are too far left and Trump will be able to brand them as "left wing lunatics who will steal your guns, create a new green deal that will bankrupt the country and force you to ride in a solar power bus to the state run hospital or unemployment office after they confiscate your car and the bus will be driven by a(n il)legal immigrant as they opened all borders, with free health insurance etc"

Hey. I think this is a GREAT plan.

J-Spoon, your overall analysis is spot-on, imo. The "Centrism" is something the future nominee will have to cultivate for the sake of the independent/swing voters, but frankly, I and a lotta other dems are still looking for that Left (forward)-leaning flavor, too.

It's time the Round 1 Trumpettes realize that, if "something different" was their hope in Trump, they certainly got it, but in all the wrong ways: "Drain the Swamp" only became a nightmare scenario of even more hideous swamp creatures, the national debt is outta control, the military is being undermined, gun violence is only worse, foreign alliances are shakier than ever, congressional gridlock is no better, etc., etc.

Many will argue they are too far left and Trump will be able to brand them as "left wing lunatics who will steal your guns, create a new green deal that will bankrupt the country and force you to ride in a solar power bus to the state run hospital or unemployment office after they confiscate your car and the bus will be driven by a(n il)legal immigrant as they opened all borders, with free health insurance etc"

The thing is, Trump and the entire GOP (there is no difference) will do that NO MATTER WHO the nominee is. It will make no difference.

So in a nutshell, one group takes the approach of looking for the best possible candidate to provide the greatest chances of victory; the other group's approach is to find a candidate to equalise on as many demographics as possible, knowing that basically anyone will be superior to Trump when it comes to personality, likeability and general competence.
Both seem like valid approaches. The first is a little more aspirational in terms of actually wanting to end up with a good leader, and the second is maybe safer in terms of the probability of removing a terrible leader.

The problem with the second approach is that what people think makes someone more electable is for the most part not grounded in reality. For instance, the only thing that Biden actually has going for him on the "electable" scale is that he's a moderate, and there is some empirical evidence that backs up the idea that all else equal moderates have an advantage with the electorate. But even that advantage is not so great that other factors cannot quickly wipe it out if they are otherwise a poor candidate, or another candidate is simply superior.

So really the second option is not actually a safer option since you end up just voting for the person you think is the most likely person to remove the terrible leader, not the person who actually is the most likely to remove them.

He has two more (huge things going for him)

1. And this is tied to being a moderate..his healthcare plan is the best in the field in terms of electability. As in - most people like it. Liberals forget that not everyone wants the government exclusively involved in everything. A brand new system is super scary. More people like Biden’s plan.

2. He’s tied to Obama. Obama is the most popular politician in the country. Biden is the only front runner who hasn’t bashed him. (And is tied to him). Fatal mistakes by Sanders and Warren.

That being said, apparently up to 90% of Iowans polled are willing to change their vote - this is far from over. But again, Biden has capitalized on the necessary demos to win - and Warren and Sanders are ignoring those same demos. It’s Biden’s until someone takes those voting blocks from him.

_________________“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie

So in a nutshell, one group takes the approach of looking for the best possible candidate to provide the greatest chances of victory; the other group's approach is to find a candidate to equalise on as many demographics as possible, knowing that basically anyone will be superior to Trump when it comes to personality, likeability and general competence.
Both seem like valid approaches. The first is a little more aspirational in terms of actually wanting to end up with a good leader, and the second is maybe safer in terms of the probability of removing a terrible leader.

The problem with the second approach is that what people think makes someone more electable is for the most part not grounded in reality. For instance, the only thing that Biden actually has going for him on the "electable" scale is that he's a moderate, and there is some empirical evidence that backs up the idea that all else equal moderates have an advantage with the electorate. But even that advantage is not so great that other factors cannot quickly wipe it out if they are otherwise a poor candidate, or another candidate is simply superior.

So really the second option is not actually a safer option since you end up just voting for the person you think is the most likely person to remove the terrible leader, not the person who actually is the most likely to remove them.

He has two more (huge things going for him)

1. And this is tied to being a moderate..his healthcare plan is the best in the field in terms of electability. As in - most people like it. Liberals forget that not everyone wants the government exclusively involved in everything. A brand new system is super scary. More people like Biden’s plan.

2. He’s tied to Obama. Obama is the most popular politician in the country. Biden is the only front runner who hasn’t bashed him. (And is tied to him). Fatal mistakes by Sanders and Warren.

That being said, apparently up to 90% of Iowans polled are willing to change their vote - this is far from over. But again, Biden has capitalized on the necessary demos to win - and Warren and Sanders are ignoring those same demos. It’s Biden’s until someone takes those voting blocks from him.

Yes, but now we are getting into the specifics of a candidate's positions rather than who they are. My point was about general assumptions that people make. That is what I meant by that last part that the advantages/disadvantages are quickly wiped out by the specifics.

If people look at a candidate's policies (or even their personal popularity/unpopularity) and say those simply play better, then that is a solid "electability" argument. The entire thrust of my argument was to stop thinking of candidates generally as "people will be more likely to vote for a man/white dude than a woman/PoC" because the specifics of a candidate are waaaaay more consequential than those factors.

I suppose when I started talking about Biden specifically I muddied up that point, but I meant what Biden had going for him in a "general" sense. He does have more going for him in the specifics and policy level. Though also things that could hurt him, like that he is a terrible debater and can get easily flustered and is prone to gaffes.

_________________↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

Last edited by justintyme on 09/24/19 11:43 am; edited 1 time in total

2. He’s tied to Obama. Obama is the most popular politician in the country. Biden is the only front runner who hasn’t bashed him. (And is tied to him). Fatal mistakes by Sanders and Warren.

Biden has obviously played the Obama card better than anyone thus far, but I have every confidence Barack will LOUDLY back whomever is nominated. I'd be curious to know if Obama--in his heart of hearts, with all his knowledge of the candidates--actually believes Biden is The Man for this job.

In my opinion and experience, the current political analyses based on identity and intersectionality are mostly flawed in theory and wrong in actual voting practice.

Stated more precisely, I don't think Biden's supposed electability has much to do with his race or sex. It has to do with two powerful historical voter realities.

First, there is a large group of moderate, working class, swing voters in the key swing states, especially the Midwest rust belt. These voters swung toward Nixon in 68 and 72, comprising his "silent majority". They swung to Carter in 76 and then back to Reagan in 80 and 84, being then called "Reagan Democrats". They inched to Clinton over Papa Bush, after Bush lost his Gulf War 90% favorability rating, because he broke his promise "read my lips, no new taxes." These moderate voters later swung enough to elect Obama and then Trump.

Biden is first seen seen as more electable than other Dems because he is perceived to have more appeal this historical block of swing state swing voters -- whatever the motivations of those voters actually are. I believe those motivations are mainly the bread and butter issues of economic and personal/family security.

The second reason Biden is seen as the most electable Dem is because it is perceived that he, not any of the candidates of color or female gender, will be overwhelmingly preferred by the critical Black vote in a primary election, and hence also will cause the biggest Black turnout in the general election.

Whether either of these two electability perceptions about Biden is existentially true or not are questions that have no fixed answers. The perceptions will change with time and campaigning. Surely, they have been perceptions about Biden until recently. However, Biden historically has been a disastrous and giant failure as a presidential campaigner, two or three times. As he continues to gaffe, dissimulate and otherwise flounder in his campaign, his supposed electability will likely diminish pro rata.

The related point is that these changing perceptual dynamics will have little to do with actual voters implementing identity politics or intersectionality, which will be seen in historical hindsight as overblown labels of a confused and polarized political era.

The criteria for the next (October) debate has been long known. Notably, Steyer recently qualified for that debate (his first), and Gabbard is currently just one poll away from qualifying as well (after missing September's debate).

But the DNC has now announced the criteria to qualify for the November debate. While both the polling and fundraising measures have increased once again, they've only increased moderately (compared to the August to September leap that kicked half the team off the field).

Candidates must...

POLLING

* Receive 3% or more support in at least four national or single-state polls (single state for Iowa, NH, Nevada, or South Carolina). Must be four different qualifying pollsters -- it can't be four polls from a single polling organization (unless it's for different geographical areas, such as one national poll and one Nevada poll).

OR

* Receive 5% in two single-state polls in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and/or South Carolina. These CAN be from the same polling organization, even if they're both for the same state.

Either way, the polls must be published between September 13 and at least 7 days before the debate (although the debate date is not yet set).

AND

Need 165,000 unique donors, with 600 unique donors per state in at least 20 states. (This is not significantly higher than the previous cutoff, so many candidates have already surpassed it).

-----

With these new criteria now known, here's the current standings:

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris ("The Top Five") all have enough donors, but are currently just one poll shy of qualifying.

Cory Booker is two polls away, but has not met the fundraising standard yet.

Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, and Andrew Yang have all met the fundraising standard, but are three polls away.

Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, and Tom Steyer have all met the fundraising standard, but don't have a single poll yet.

The rest of the candidates have no polls AND have not met the fundraising requirement.

_________________The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect

_________________The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect

Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has support of 27% of Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic in a new Quinnipiac University national poll, topping rival Joe Biden’s 25%.

It’s the first time that a candidate other than Biden has had the numerical lead in a Quinnipiac primary poll, the university said Wednesday in a news release, but Quinnipiac also emphasized that Warren, the Massachusetts senator, is “essentially tied” with the former vice president, and her lead is well within the poll’s margin of error.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders got 16% support in the poll, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg was at 7%, California Sen. Kamala Harris drew 3% support, and no other candidate was above 2%.

Quinnipiac found that Warren is generating the most excitement among Democratic and Democratic leaning voters.

Quote:

“After trailing Biden by double digits since March in the race for the Democratic nomination, Warren catches Biden,” Malloy also said. “We now have a race with two candidates at the top of the field, and they’re leaving the rest of the pack behind.”